Posted on 08/04/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."
In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.
AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.
Debate over evolution shuts down IMAX film
Cape Cod Times, MA - Jul 5, 2005
... Fred Spilhaus, American Geophysical's executive director, said the movie ''A Privileged Planet'' promotes ''creationism in the form of intelligent design ...
Cute, but it is a nickname
You should read more carefully. The point is that they should choose their words more carefully. (You can benefit from that advice, too.) I am belittling the specific speaker for using such over-the-top phrases. Let's face it: he wanted to make the news and it wouldn't have happened unless he exaggerated the risk. You, obviously, agree with the speaker. Many of us feel that there are greater risks out there. Your way of advancing your opinions does little to sway people.
The only thing that seperates us from those barbaric Islamo-fascists is our scientific progress.
I think the Islamakazes would beg to differ.
our religion might help us lead moral and peaceful lives personally, but it shouldnt be allowed to compromise our scientific capabilities..... which is exactly what you and your ilk are trying to do, by undermining our own scientists and attacking the entire scientific establishment, and by legitimizing an anti-scientific mood all over the country.
It almost sounds as though you don't believe that scientists and religious people can co-exist. We are "attacking" and undermining your establishment? That's rather foolish since your group is smart enough to create bombs and can take care of us just like you are doing the "barbaric Islamo-fascists."
The western civilization owes everything to science and technical disciplines.
I disagree. Again, in the New Testament we are warned against any member of the body feeling that it is more important than another member of the body. In thinking of the birth of this nation there were thinkers, fighters and even religion played an important role (where were those rebellious meeting held most frequently?).
I'm afraid its a bit cold way to put it, but its the harsh truth--> This country can do away without a thousand Grammar teachers than half a dozen scientists.
Time for a joke, I think told by Gorbachev. The president of the United States has dozens of Secret Service officers and one is a Russian spy. The President of France has dozens of lovers and one has Aids. The leader of Russia has dozens of economic advisers and one is right. Which ones?
Don't look down at non-scientists as stupid peons and then you will get some respect from non-scientists.
There have been, I think, three or four situations where supposedly incorrect information has been presented as supporting evolution that were later found to have been incorrect. All of those issues were corrected by other scientists, usually because the information disagreed with later understanding about evolution. They WERE NOT discovered by ID proponents.
Implying that all of science, and evolution theory in particular is bogus because of a small handful of issues is no different than implying that all Christians are suicidal murderers because Jim Jones followers were.
If you did'nt understand my parody of your post, sorry. I'll be more clear next time.
Well, you are the one to claim some proficiency in English grammar, not moi... BTW, Math is the language of scientists, not English ;)
What utter hogwash. This is such a parochial view of science. Science is merely one of the pillars of our civilization, a great pillar, but only one, and one that is derived from other forces in the genius of the West. In fact modern science as we understand it only dates from the time of Galileo.
You should get out more often. Go listen to some Mozart, it might teach you something about your civilization. You need to get some perspective on "Science."
Both as individuals and as members of a civilization, Science deals with only a portion of our being in the world, and if you had ever known scientist of real accomplishment you would find that they would tell you that.
This seems to be true of most people, and it's very sad. It's not the memorized facts of science that are important in everyday life, but rather the worldview, the way of looking at evidence and analyzing cause and effect relationships.
In my understanding, it does.
I understand that it uses the same cheesy technique of the environmentalists. It presents an interesting film with scientific information, then spends the last 30 seconds editorializing about an "intelligent designer", or some such.
Nice propaganda technique. But they should have done something a bit more dissimilar to the envirowhackos.
I learned about that in logic class in college, plus math class and philosophy. It isn't just science that includes such skills.
But, you make a good point. We should use what we learn in science class about analysis etc.
That is largely what dissection labs etc. are for I am sure.
And that is exactly what it is.
Faith.
Communism and atheism needed a universal religion. They got one in "Evoluuuuution".
Pray for W and Our Troops
Well, hooray for them. It probably seems weird to scientists who know that the theory of evolution is frequently altered as we understand more about the world (maybe it'll even one day include a designer).
People choosing to worship a concept has about as much bearing on the validity of the theory as would gravity-worshippers or a largest-prime-number-we-currently-know cult.
RWP: In the scientific community, about as much.
Now, this is just a swag on my part (oops, please excuse me - let's make that a "wag"), but I would estimate that the ratio of those in the science community who have reservations re: evolution is about the same as those in the MSM who have reservations about liberalism.
Mind you, I'm NOT suggesting that there is any pressure exerted or exclusionary tactics - no no no; not me. I am confident that both groups of professionals "evolved" to their present state (naturally).
Critics of science like to ridicule forensic sciences like geology and paleontology as inventing "just so" stories. What they fail to understand is the iterative process of telling the story, working out the necessary context of the story, and searching for supporting evidence.
You don't build fundamental paradigms like evolution overnight from deductive reasoning. You build it year by year, decade by decade, from speculation to evidence to refined speculation.
A teacher in a public school is free to bring in things that are not on the established curriculum as long as they cover what they have to cover, but that teacher obviously felt pressure from the department head not to talk about anything but evolution.
That's utterly ridiculous! Bosh. Nonsense.
Only the top of the 90th percentile goes on to do hard science. They can figure it out. Most people muddle through life fine without ever having to use applications from evolutionary Darwinism or the Zarathustran Big Bang. Or to worry about any of the Monkey Bones silliness that gets sexually neurotic liberal secular humanists all worked up.
What a dork. Sound the Dork Alarm!
What would a missing link look like? If you were to search for such a hypothetical being, what would you expect it to look like, and why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.